Coaching teamwork: Team sport athletes’ and coaches’ perceptions of how coaches facilitate teamwork
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, research on teamwork in sport has largely focused on defining the construct and examining its relationships to emergent states and outcomes. By comparison, little is known about the antecedents (e.g., leadership) that promote teamwork behaviors in team sports. The purpose of this study was to explore what specifically sport coaches can do to develop teamwork within their teams. Using a critical realist approach, we conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with participants who competed in interdependent team sports (n = 8 athletes, n = 7 coaches). The data were thematically analyzed whereby three higher-order themes (comprising nine subthemes) were generated. The themes included (1) Crafting a teamwork recipe, (2) Come together, stay together, and (3) Maximizing teamwork in action. Specifically, coaches can facilitate teamwork by: (re)structuring selection practices, carefully considering team compositions, and encouraging role commitment (Theme 1); emphasizing coach-athlete relationships, promoting meaningful connections between teammates, and managing perceptions of favoritism (Theme 2); and crafting team-focused tactics, promoting athlete-led teamwork, and managing healthy internal competition (Theme 3). In summary, coaches appear to play an important role in facilitating teamwork. Specifically, coaches could consider looking beyond individual talent and skill during the team selection process, promoting strong bonds with their players and amongst teammates, and focusing on team-first training and execution tactics. Recommendations for future research and additional implications for those working in the applied field (e.g., coaches, sport psychologists) are also discussed.Lay summary: This study explored how team sport coaches might facilitate teamwork within their teams. Based on interviews with eight coaches and seven athletes, we identified how coaches utilize the following factors to promote teamwork: team selection, roles, coach-athlete relationships, athlete-to-athlete support, favoritism, tactical systems, athlete leadership, and internal competition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".